The more I read about this game. The more i go OH OH..8(

They're typically only dismissive if they disagree with it. It's an easy way to support your own argument.

 

People that think for themselves come up with their own ideas of what is and isnt.

 

Well, one of the problems with Wikipedia is lack of oversight of some type. It's self-policed (pretty much), and self interests are always the contributors. And if people oppose what the self interest person/group/whatever says, their posts get deleted or edited out, or some moderator comes in and locks it against other contributions.

Like, as one example, there's this really toxic self-professed guru who has a Wikipedia entry. This guy was literally deported from the US on various charges, including domestic terrorism. But when you bring those up, they say it wasn't him, it was his groupies, and all kinds of excuses.

There are many times I've used Wikipedia as a reference, and I like to use it. But some things, you really do have to take with a grain of salt.

I do think the definition of a AAA game is debatable, Wikipedia or not.

 

Words have universal meaning in a language. When you reject the accepted definition of a term and insist it means something else because you alone say so, that doesn't make it so.

Wikipedia has over 31,000 editors and over 1,400 Administrators. I'm not sure why people assume that Wikipedia has no oversight.

Someone once insisted to me that since anyone can add anything, that it is impossible for editors to see and correct anything on Wikipedia. So we tested it. I made a small article that no one should notice and told no one.

Editors quickly swooped in, cleaned it up, verified all the claims in the article, added references, etc.

Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Center_(Omaha)&action=history

 

An informed population is the enemy of those currently in power, whether that be pure information, education, or transparency. That's why the media outlets and propaganda radio talk shows press the perception that the continually reviewed and vetted information on Wikipedia is somehow suspect. They would prefer that all of your programming come from approved sources.

This is also why they push stories to the forefront that highlight bad science or create the perception that science has equal weight with opinion and belief.

Not trying to derail, just explaining the current programming that is meant to condition us to believe that any information from common sources such as Wikipedia should immediately be rejected.

 

I gotta say, this is the exact opposite of my opinion. All UO was was a grind for skill points. It was literally ALL grinding for monsters and macroing up skills. The community had some great role players and some horrible griefers. BUT there was no plot, no story, no nothing except a world with some context based on a series of games. Ultima Online was separate from the Ultima series of games, though it shared some basic lore, it did not encompass most all of what the Ultima games contained.

I expect a lot more from SotA, especially since this is NOT AN MMO! I don't want UO; if I did, well I'd just go play UO.

 

The most active people become moderators, which does not mean they necessarily know what they're doing. They are unpaid volunteers.

 

The more specialized the knowledge the more nonsense you find on Wikipedia and worse: If one tries to correct highly specialized issues one has to fight with armies of laypeople whom have once read something in an outdated book.I had this on multiple occasions when trying to correct mistakes in physics articles. The most memorable was multiple people coming back at me with textbooks from the 60s, when the theory that explains the phenomenon at question was not even developed =)

The conclusion is simple: Don't trust anything you read anywhere. Always research and verify.

 

Yeah exactly now imagine thousands of people making fake stories so realistically its impossible to catch every one before someone reads it as news

 

Doesn't that happen every day with the tabloids?

(And I remember Jeff Goldblum having to do the whole 'Stories of my demise are greatly exaggerated')

 

Except even if 31,000 people each invented a fake story every day, there are 31,000 editors to catch them.

You're talking about a theoretical. The reality is that objective blind studies find it accurate consistently. I'll take verified objective facts every time.

 

I gotta say, I am a little tired of some backers on these forums clamoring for another UO. They want this, that and the other thing in SotA to be like it was in UO. Ultima Online is a thing of the past people and I think the last thing these developers want to do is make a UO clone with a Shroud of the Avatar wraparound.

Garriott has made it clear that he feels the RPG genre has become stale and that he wants to introduce new and fresh elements to an open world RPG. Why would he want to repeat something he has already done? SotA is about a new start, new ideas and a fresh entry to a somewhat stale genre. You're not going to get UO people, nor should you want it! If you backed this game wanting or expecting same ol, same ol, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

The German language wikipedia has already entirely been hijacked by a close-knit group of deletionists who will remove or delete anything they themselves do not consider important enough by rigid and stupid rules.
I would not be surprised if the English version will deteriorate in a similar or different fashion down the road, as either do everything to scare of expert contributors maximally.

I used to know many scientists editing articles on wikipedia, including the German wikipedia, but the number of authors has gone down consistently in favor of fewer and fewer very heavy authors. By now I know almost no scientist anymore that still contributes. Writing anything serious on wikipedia is very unrewarding and feels like fighting windmills. New authors are quite often immediately scared off as well, these days.

An article you might find interesting:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

 

Tabloids arent a hard news outlet

 

One of the more entertaining side-arguments guys. Cheers!

OP - I see your point. But I think with that expectation you are going to be disappointed. It just simply will not be a jazzed up UO. However, if SOTA comes up with something NEW who is to say it won't be as good?

My opinion is that we are all comparing SOTA to what we have played/liked/hated before. I'm hoping for a lot of the best bits and potential of UO to be there. I'm keeping an open mind about the rest.

 

No its not theoretical its happened

 

Because UO was the best and nothing will ever be as good thats why they want it

 

Pretty sad considering the multitudes of games that came after it and improved upon it. Its very akin to burying your head in the sand, popping up every few years to just glance around, not move, or try a new spot, just look, consider everything crap, and re-bury your head.

I honestly feel that is why a lot of people on here are so accepting of everything and not really pushing.

Even though for this project, their almighty designer, point in fact, said he wanted US to help develop the game.

If anything, anyone who criticises or offers new ways to solve problems are actually carrying out the mandate he established, and everyone else who clamours for the olden days of yore are basically going against the very foundation of this new game.

 

D&D rule book was created and players loved it. They made their own campaigns and adventures.

The problem is, UO is like the D&D rule set, it's a tool for creating and EA was not using that tool to create adventures. The dumped it on the players. Many enjoy this and that's great. But UO was not a game when it was released it, in the same way that D&D is not a game.

Richard Garriott is making a new rule set and this time he is making the game too. He wants to deliver a story, one that evolves and isn't just waiting for the players. He is still going to give the players to room to use the rules to make their own adventures.

 

So what's ground breaking in SotA Crafting, Gathering, Housing, 2d overland map, Instanced encounters, Decent Graphics and Character movement, PvP and Combat.
I think they have all been done before:

1 Housing -UO free form decoration 3D housing will never achieve that level maybe 3D isometric.
2 Gathering-UO no nodes
3 Crafting -UO always needed by players & deeds
4 Exploring world - Every MMO My choices LotRO massive world makes Skyrim seem very small world.
5 Instanced encounters - Almost every MMO released now.
6 Decent Graphics - LOTRO my choice, Skyrim maybe but too Grey,others to me seem Vivid Bright Colours & poorly crafted toons to cover up the crap.
7 Character movement- LotRO for me
8 PvP- Not a PvP player so nothing to add.
9 Combat- Conan but last played many years ago.